Canada to announce restoration of"Royal"to Navy and AF

On Tuesday, National Defence Minister Peter Mackay is expected to announce the restoration of the Royal designation of the navy and air force branches of the Canadian Forces at CFB Halifax.

Sources say the branches are expected to be renamed the Royal Canadian Navy, replacing Maritime Command, and the Royal Canadian Air Force. The army, which has many royal titles in its regiments, will be known as the Canadian Army.

Various veterans organizations, particularly those affiliated with the navy, have lobbied Ottawa to make the change, which was supported by a Senate committee late last year.

In a letter earlier this year, MacKay responded to veterans who had written on the matter to say the Royal title had never officially been stripped from use, but was dropped in 1968 when the branches were amalgamated into the Canadian Armed Forces.

“The reintroduction of the titles of the former single services amalgamated to form the Canadian Forces is a matter we are considering, and I expect that we will make a decision on this issue in the near future,” the minister said in a letter posted in May on the website Restore the Honour, which collected more than 6,200 signatures in support of the change.

The Department of National Defence would not comment Monday, except to confirm they are setting up for an announcement on the jetty at the base ....

quote:The army, which has many royal titles in its regiments, will be known as the Canadian Army.

For example, our Army has infantry units like the Royal Canadian Regiment (RCR), Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI) as well as armoured units like the Lord Strathcona's and the Governor General's Horse Guards (reserve recce unit). So wouldn't it be redundant?

I expect those at the Royal Navy forum will have similar answers for you about the British Army's many regiments.

When the British Army was formed in the 1660’s, it was a collection of regiments rather than a single unified force.Regiments were owned by contractorswho expected to make a profit.Regiments were known by their Colonel’s name rather than by a number as became the custom later.In some cases, the contractor happened to be the King and these were termed Royal regiments.

By the mid 1700’s, this system was obsolete and changed to one more similar to what we know now.Regiments received numbers and, later, titles.“Royal” became an honourary title.

The entire Navy, however, was “owned” by the crown from the beginning it was always the Royal Navy.Think of it as being one big Regiment.When the RAF was formed as a separate service, it retained the “Royal” title of the Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service which were combined to create it.

drunknsubmrnr wrote:Wonderful. Instead of getting new ships, the navy gets the "Royal" back.

Talk about re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.....

I have to agree with you there. What is it with Conservative governments in Canada - they claim to be be supporters of the military, but they have a proven history of giving lip service to the forces, while providing little new kit, while deploying the lads to danger zones with worn out kit. Meanwhile the Liberals - generally regarded since Trudeau's days as being soft on the military, are the ones to commence the Halifax class frigates via the Canadian Patrol Frigate Project (CPFP, and the CF-18 fighters. Not that the Liberals aren't idiotic too, such as canceling the EH-101s for our (now Royal) navy, but I can't stand the Conservative's ill-gained reputation as supporters of the CAF.

The soldiers in Afghanistan got new tanks, new mine resistant vehicles, new howitzers, new UAV's, new helicopters, new transport aircraft, even new rifles.

As for the CFP and NFA projects - true, they stared under the Liberals, but that's mostly because the Liberals were the government from 1963 to 1984 (with a few months break). The kit they bought in the 1950's was well past its best-before date. It's notable that both projects were started several years later than they should have been. The Mulroney government had some very ambitious defence plans - new tanks, new subs, and new helicopters. The end of the Cold War and of the Conservative government meant that only the last, and just teh Army part of that, could be done

In fairness, the CH-148 were ordered by the previous government. Against which they fart-arsed around for about half a decade on that front.

But yeah, the current mob aren't perfect, but they do seem better than their predecessors. The shortlist of equipment ordered during their tenure includes (AFAIK):
-New Chinook
-New Hercules
-C-17
-Leo 2
-M777
-Integrated Soldier Systems
-Significant LAVIII upgrades
-FELEX program
-JSF
Now there is more there to be done, and some projects need to actually start producing results (the chronic vapourware which is JSS and replacement of the Tribals, for instance) but exactly the same criticism could be leveled against the previous government. And the previous government didn't have the excuse of a recession to fall back on.

Semantically, I'd ask for how one goes about defining 'token'.
-4 C-17 realistically means 2 ready to fly any day you choose, and usually 3. Each Globemaster has the utility of ~4 Herc
-17 J-Herc... making Canada's order the 4th largest after only the US the UK and Italy. One should also bear in mind that the CF only 19 E-Herc left, of which only 8 were actually air worthy, so by most definitions lift capacity in the Herc fleet (not counting the Globemasetr) has gone up, substantially. Exactly how much airlift does the CF need?
-35 M777: enough to equip 5 odd batteries plus spares. Remind me how many field batteries Canada has used in theatre in support of current ops? Bear in mind that the CF also has two dozen odd new 105mm LG1 (thank the Libs for them) which are pointless for ops but a decent gun for training.
-15 F-Chinook: that ought to be enough to keep 3-4 in theater indefinitely. Which is 2-3 heavy lift helicopters ion theatre ready to go all the time.
-Upgrades to 550 LAVIII, how many regiments will that equip?
I'll hand you that the JSF buy is on the smaller side, but I do have to ask what threat one would would predicate a larger order on. And seriously, that's not a bad equipment program, seems to me to be sized around a realistic appreciation of the size of force that Canada is actually capable of and willing to deploy.

-4 C-17 realistically means 2 ready to fly any day you choose, and usually 3. Each Globemaster has the utility of ~4 Herc

It means 2.1 aircraft ready to fly for about 10 hours/day at most. At the range we usually use them for, we're looking at carrying a -J sized Herc load over a much longer distance. Keep in mind that our tactical distances are what anybody else would call strategic lift. Compared to what we need to transport, that's not much.

-17 J-Herc... making Canada's order the 4th largest after only the US the UK and Italy. One should also bear in mind that the CF only 19 E-Herc left, of which only 8 were actually air worthy, so by most definitions lift capacity in the Herc fleet (not counting the Globemasetr) has gone up, substantially. Exactly how much airlift does the CF need?

They're also replacing most of the -H models. Considering the stalled FWSAR program, probably all of the -H models, leading to a replacement of 32 aircraft with 17.

35 M777: enough to equip 5 odd batteries plus spares. Remind me how many field batteries Canada has used in theatre in support of current ops? Bear in mind that the CF also has two dozen odd new 105mm LG1 (thank the Libs for them) which are pointless for ops but a decent gun for training.

We're not using any batteries in current ops. We pulled out last month.

37 guns sounds like a lot, but when they're distributed in batteries across the brigades, and across multiple training centres, it works out to about 2 deployable 2-gun batteries. Again, that's not much and it's all we're going to get for the forseeable future. That means we're absolutely screwed if we have to fight against anybody with counter-battery capability. We also have severe issues moving those guns around in support of LAV ops.

-15 F-Chinook: that ought to be enough to keep 3-4 in theater indefinitely. Which is 2-3 heavy lift helicopters ion theatre ready to go all the time

It's enough to deploy 3 indefinitely, with a surge to 6 for 6 months. It's not enough to deploy the helos around internally in support of training as well as an international deployment, leading to a very underwhelming airmobile capability.

16 (later 15 due to a drop to 1 operating base) was the absolute minimum option that could be ordered to have any capability with the Chinook. They wanted over 30 to allow for a deployment of 6 plus dedicated 427 SOAS airframes.

-Upgrades to 550 LAVIII, how many regiments will that equip?

Probably 6 battalions. Badly. The original order was supposed to be 1000 spread over 9 battalions, and that didn't allow for rotation and a pre-positioned deployment set. There's a reason we're refurbishing hundreds of worn-out LAV-I's and LAV-II's as well as the remaining LAV-III's.

I'll hand you that the JSF buy is on the smaller side, but I do have to ask what threat one would would predicate a larger order on.

The Air Staff committed to being able to deploy 6 aircraft for up to 6 months at a time with 85 CF-18's. Chances of being able to do that and meet our NORAD obligations (forgot them didn't you?) with 65 airframes are slim.

And seriously, that's not a bad equipment program, seems to me to be sized around a realistic appreciation of the size of force that Canada is actually capable of and willing to deploy.

Sure. The government is quite happy to deploy token numbers, and our allies (especially the US) seem quite happy to accept that.

Air bursts will not create "Areas of Doom" - Survival under Atomic Attack

It wouldn't surprise me if they left some, most or all of the Leo IIs behind for the new Afghan army. Assuming all the Leo IIs come home, what about the 15 Leo Is we shipped to Afghanistan earlier? What is their fate?

True, especially since they're likely not going to be deployed again overseas for a long time, if ever.

I can't help imagining the improvements to the RCN and RCAF that could have been made if the estimated $11 billion dollars spent on the Afghan mission (plus the cost of the Leo IIs and other kit not included in the estimate) had been spent on these two Services instead, http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/news-nouvelles/2010/2010_07_09.aspx?lang=eng. For example, the RCN needs 3.1 billion to refit the Halifax class ships to extend their lives through 2030.